And that fact is reported in a science journal? It’s amazing that a story like this would appear at a science pr site:
The idea of fast-track evolution during speciation has been controversial. Critics of the theory of punctuated equilibrium found it difficult to believe that the evolutionary processes leading to new species should be markedly different from the processes that cause already existing species to change.
“Species are continuously evolving and our results support the hypothesis that evolution does not “behave” differently when new species emerge,” says Voje.Bjarne Røsjø, University of Oslo, “The Most Popular Textbook Example of Punctuated Evolution Has Been Debunked by Researchers” at SciTech Daily
Paper. (open access)
Just the title. Punk Eek was supposed to be the final smack in the face to Darwin doubters. As if the science pr site’s purpose is not just to defend Darwinism.Could we someday have a discussion of the various ways evolution happens?
19 Replies to “A big evolution theory is NOT backed up?”
It was? Nobody told me.
LoL! No one told Bob O’H about the many anatomical and physiological differences between chimps and humans, either.
Punctuated equilibrium is consistent with current evolutionary thinking.
Did anyone say that punctuated equilibrium was inconsistent with current evolutionary thinking? Just trying to figure out who Acartia Eddie was responding to. Or if it’s his Tourette’s acting up.
Punctuated equilibrium was primarily a description of the fossil record: sudden appearance and stasis. Stasis is clearly natural and is subject to scientific investigation. As such, it deserves a comprehensive Theory of Conservation to better describe the mechanisms underlying the lack of gradual step-by-step evolutionary change in the history of life. Sudden appearance, on the other, may not be natural. This is particularly true when describing the sudden appearance of the higher taxa and life’s major body plans. As Gould pointed out in Wonderful Life, disparity preceded diversity, contrary to the primary prediction of neo-Darwinian theory.
As far as I can tell punctuated equilibrium is a question and not an answer.
Here’s a take on synthesizing Darwinism with ID to explain how Punky-E might work in the fossil record:
All this Sturm und Drang about ‘species’ when there is still no agreed to definition of species.
On the contrary, Latemarch. There are over 20 agreed to definition of species.
A recent study pointed that in the oceans, variability has been almost non existing for millions of years, that there were these times of variability and then has stopped. It is not even 3 months long ago when it was published.
“On the contrary, Latemarch. There are over 20 agreed to definition of species.“
WHAT!? only 20! Lol :p
By the way I know of nothing that isn’t consistent with any form of evolutionary thinking
I think that is said on every one of the studies that says hey this is inconsistent with evolutionary thinking and then we have a commentator say this is very consistent with evolutionary thinking
I’m just saying there’s a pattern here
🙂 Apparently the disagreement between the researchers themselves as to exactly what the definition of a species is suppose to be does not constitute disagreement in Bob’s opinion.
Contrary to Bob’s claim for ‘agreement’, the fact of the matter is that, “The most important concept in all of biology (species) is a complete mystery”
In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”
As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!
Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is when they see it. People never confuse a dog, with a cat, with a rodent, with a squirrel, or with a etc.. etc.. etc..
Darwinists, besides being unable to define exactly what the term species actually means, also have no evidence for the ‘blending together of characteristics’, as would be, and is, predicted under the assumption of ‘continual gradual transformations of ‘species’ into new ‘species’ (whatever the term ‘species’ is even suppose to mean for a Darwinist)
As Stephen Meyer explained, “the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.”
Here is an interesting quote from a researcher who, during working for his PhD thesis, was ‘surprised’ to find ‘Distinct kinds’ instead of a ‘blending together of characteristics as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions. He even states “this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. ”
In other words, ‘species’ do exist as ‘distinct kinds’. Distinct kinds that, contrary to what Darwin himself thought, can be readily differentiated from each other and which do not ‘blend into’ one another.
“But our new results show nothing else than a gradual evolution of the bryozoan species both before, during and after the formation of new species,” emphasizes Voje.
What new species was formed in this case?
Does this paper answer the Cambrian Explosion questions?
Was the evolution that led to dogs and cats gradual or punctuated?
What about the evolution that led to the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes?
Without intelligence far beyond human understanding, there can be no life, since you cannot get something from nothing. Is there any other plausible theory as to origin of life without ID? Either life was created by God, for lack of a better word, or it created itself from nothing.
“Is there any other plausible theory as to origin of life without ID?”
You my want to ask Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak. They both are about to show how life could have appeared by natural means.
The real question is whether they will split the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize peacefully?
Dr Swamidass -the undisputed leader in peaceful science- could help to ensure that those two distinguished scientists don’t fight for the prize, but share it as two beloved colleagues.